This event will be held on Sunday evening, June 7th from 7-9 pm at Our Saviour’s Lutheran Church in Prince George, BC  Canada. Please see OSLC’s website for details or contact information. The cost for the event is free, and I’ll be joined by two other speakers, Art Betke on Limits to Evolution, and John MacDonell on Evolution Revolution.

The primary purpose for this event is to get people discussing this important topic. The speakers will present an overview of the various positions, discuss how to think about such topics in a clear and compassionate manner, and present opposing views on the subject (i.e.: one creationist point of view and one evolutionist point of view).

If you are in or around the Prince George, BC, Canada area, TilledSoil.org encourages you to attend, as we’ve been promoting this topic as an important subject to discuss in our churches. Often, because the issue can be divisive, it is avoided. We don’t believe ‘sweeping disagreement under the rug’ is healthy in any kind of relationship, let alone the church body or the relationship between church and culture.

Let’s get this discussion going!

Resources mentioned at event:

Handout

PDF version of the event handout.

General

40 Questions About Creation and Evolution (40 Questions and Answers Series) – October 10, 2014 by Kenneth Keathley, Mark Rooker | on Amazon.ca

Original TilledSoil article on the 4 views of creation/evolution.

TilledSoil article on definitions of Evolution.

TilledSoil article on faith, part 1.

TilledSoil article on faith, part 2.

TilledSoil article on the Problem of Evil (as mentioned in the talk).

TilledSoil article on, Is Intelligent Design Science?

YEC – Young Earth Creation

Proslogion – Dr Jay Wile (http://blog.drwile.com)
ICR – Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org)
AiG – Answers in Genesis (https://answersingenesis.org)
Debating Darwin: Two Debates Is Darwinism True, and Does It Matter? by Graeme Finlay, Stephen Lloyd, Stephen Pattemore | on Amazon.ca
The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications (5th Ed) by Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. John Whitcomb | on Amazon.ca

OEC – Old Earth Creation (Progressive Creation)

Reasons to Believe – Dr. Hugh Ross (http://www.reasons.org)
A Matter of Days (2nd Ed) by Hugh Ross | on Amazon.ca (kindle edition, 2nd edition doesn’t seem available in print here yet, and 1st edition is expensive)
LineOfFireRadio.com “An Interview with Dr. Hugh Ross on the Days of Creation…” (hour 1) March 24, 2015 (MP3 file)
LineOfFireRadio.com “An Interview with Dr. Fazale Rana” April 9, 2015 (MP3 file)

TE – Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary Creation

BioLogos – Dr. Francis Collins (http://biologos.org)

Origins by Deborah B. and Loren Haarsma | on Amazon.ca
The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton | on Amazon.ca
The Language of God by Francis Collins | on Amazon.ca

Unbelievable radio – “Unbelievable? Have we misread the Adam and Eve story? John Walton vs Stephen Lloyd” Saturday, March 28th, 2015

NE – Naturalistic Evolution (neo-Darwinian)

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design by Richard Dawkins | on Amazon.ca
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins | on Amazon.ca

My Journey (quotes and info)

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p4
– so, maybe the appearance of having been designed for a purpose is evidence it has been?

What direction is the research moving?
Who is actually holding up science?
Does the person who is correct need to suppress other views?

Vestiges of evolution…

Scopes trial in 1925, argument was given that there were over 180 vestigial organs and structures in the human body. Now, scientists are wary of talking about vestigial organs at all. (ex: tonsils, tail-bone, thyroid, appendix.)

“Junk DNA” –> ENCODE

Brown University evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller argues that “the human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, ‘orphaned’ genes, ‘junk’ DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design.”
Miller, “Life’s Grand Design,” 24-32.

“What pseudogenes are useful for is embarrassing creationists. It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make up a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene – a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something — unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us.
…
Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.”
Dawkins 2009 book The Greatest Show on Earth

“Even more compelling evidence for a common ancestor comes from the study of what is known as ancient repetitive elements (AREs). … Mammalian genomes are littered with such AREs, with roughly 45% of the human genome made up of such genetic flotsam and jetsam. … Of course, some might argue that there are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting them as ‘junk DNA’ just betrays our current level of ignorance.”
Francis Collins, The Language of God, p135-136

The result:
“Although very catchy, the term ‘junk DNA’ repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding genetic material for many years. After all, who would like to dig through genomic garbage? Thankfully, though, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories.”
Scientific American “What is junk DNA, and what is it worth?”

OEC models predicted function would be found, and just a couple years later, ENCODE project showed over 80% function and growing.

YEC to OEC, but stopped before TE (my path)

• when I was growing up, YEC was the ‘official’ position of my church
• began to get pushed on this when starting in apologetics discussion
• discovered Hugh Ross’ ministry and found it very compelling
• was heavily encouraged to switch to Theistic Evolution in seminary
• but, I found the arguments of RtB and ID folks more compelling
• and, was really disappointed that, at the time, the TE camp hadn’t done their theology!

While I respect science, I’m not bothered by disagreeing with the current neo-Darwinian consensus.

The post Science and Faith Symposium in Prince George BC Canada appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

There are many problems here, such as their failure to deal with the original topic (diversion tactic, maybe?). But even if we chase this rabbit trail, we’ll soon find we’ve run into a wall. The ‘NOT science’ position won’t budge, and you will soon be served a generous helping of the Genetic Fallacy, along with sides of Guilt by Association and Circumstance Ad Hominem.

What they won’t typically do, is give you a good reason WHY intelligent design doesn’t qualify as science. This is because, for most people, their reaction and response have little to do with their understanding of science (or philosophy of science). Instead, the reactions come from a USA District Judge (John E. Jones III) who was so out of his depth in commenting on his 2005 decision (Kitzmiller v. Dover), that he simply copied what Eric Rothschild, the ACLU attorney, told him to say. From that point on, I’ve heard this, “Intelligent design is NOT science” being parroted by atheists and skeptics everywhere.

But every so often, you’ll come across someone who does give you some reasons. They will probably say something to the effect that intelligent design is not falsifiable, that it produces no peer-reviewed scientific results, or that it stops the advance of science. The first, even if it were true, is still a matter of debate in philosophy of science, the second is just plain false, and the third, silly.

These people don’t seem to understand that science is not some magical, master discipline that we’ve finally perfected in the last few decades by adding methodological naturalism to the mix. Science is simply a disciplined approach to uncovering the truth about the world around us, typically focused on the empirical. It is actually part of a set of overlapping disciplines with this common goal (for example, philosophy, which focuses more on rational argument and logic). How this goal and discipline is best accomplished is part of an ongoing debate within the philosophy of science. It seems few today, even among scientists, have much of this background knowledge.

For example, the constraint of falsifiability was made popular by Karl Popper but seems in opposition to Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm-shift view. Both were thrown into question by Imre Lakatos’ competing and progressive research program model of science. Paul Feyerabend would seem to throw all of these models into question. To put it simply, exactly how science should operate, isn’t nailed down.

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga, after discussing some of the proposed constraints placed on science over the years, had this to say:

“Observing methodological naturalism thus hamstrings science by precluding science from reaching what would be an enormously important truth about the world. It might be that, just as a result of this constraint, even the best science in the long run will wind up with false conclusions.”

Ultimately, it tends to come down to one’s metaphysical presuppositions. Methodological naturalism is NOT the neutral position it masquerades as. This became apparent in a recent debate between Dr. Michael Ruse and Dr. Fazale Rana over the origin of life. You can watch the entire event HERE, but skip to 2:04:11 and then to 2:16:27 and listen to Dr. Ruse’s answers to the audience questions. He would be willing to entertain intelligent design if we were talking about aliens, but not something supernatural. He then admits that his primary problem with supernatural is the problem of evil. The problem isn’t science here folks!

I’ve often posed a related challenge in return when I’ve faced the intelligent design is not science claim. Most scientist-types love SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence). The problem is, how can SETI be science if intelligent design is not, as both are looking for intelligence within naturalistic data. If intelligence and information content cannot be adequately detected, then how will these people know if they ever find E.T.? I have never gotten a serious response to this, having posed it for years, until recently.

An atheist pointed me to this article by Seth Shostak of SETI Institute. In it, he argues that intelligent design proponents are misguided in making such a comparison because, 1) they don’t understand what SETI is really looking for, and 2) what SETI is looking for isn’t complex, but artificial.

His first point has a bit of weight, as there may be some confusion here. SETI isn’t to the stage in their investigation that intelligent design researchers are, in that SETI is still looking for something to actually look at! So, yes, at this point, they simply are looking for ‘artificial’ narrow-band signals which would be ‘carriers’ to the actual data they WOULD certainly analyze if they ever find one. When I (or other ID proponents) make the parallel, it is future analysis of such a find we’re referring to, primarily.

But, his use of the term ‘artificial’ for his second point is more than a bit curious. What does artificial mean? The New Oxford American Dictionary says, “made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally.” ⁽¹⁾New Oxford American Dictionary 3rd edition © 2010 by Oxford University Press, Inc. In other words, created, not natural. He has essentially replaced design with a term less likely to seem parallel due to the connotations of contrived, fake, or even false, associated with artificial.

Further, he seems to have confused the term ‘complexity’ with what William Dembski really means when using it. He says that what SETI is looking for is actually not complex, but a simple, “organized and optimized” signal found within an unexpected environment, or “out of context.” While organized and optimized certainly sound rather designed to me, let’s compare this to what Dembski is really saying:

“Thus in general, given an event, object, or structure, to convince ourselves that it is designed we need to show that it is improbable (i.e., complex) and suitably patterned (i.e., specified). … The ‘complexity’ in ‘specified complexity’ is a measure of improbability.”

Isn’t ‘suitably patterned’ a bit like ‘organized and optimized,’ and ‘out of context’ a bit like ‘improbable?’ These two concepts sure sound similar to me… and I guarantee that if they ever find that carrier, the complexity will go up a great deal and what they will be, then, looking for will be quite the same: information. And information means author or designer, whether God or E.T.

But, what really puts the nail in the coffin ⁽²⁾Just in case this ends up in translation… A figure of speech or idiom, meaning ‘put an end to’ (the argument)… ie. it’s dead! , is taking a look at SETI’s FAQ page. For example, they say, “Any signal less than about 300 Hz wide must be, as far as we know, artificially produced.” So, let’s apply methodological naturalism in a similar manner to how it is imposed on intelligent design. Since they can’t, then, infer E.T. as the author for such a signal, they are going to have to give in to SETI being non-science, start using the term ‘faith’ ⁽³⁾incorrectly, but in line with how skeptics often use it a bit more, and start defending themselves against ‘E.T. of the gaps’ accusations.

Bottom line: Whether ID is science or not is a matter of philosophy and worldview, not the opinion of scientists and rogue judges.

Be aware though, this matters not just for the debate between Christian apologists and skeptics. As Plantinga pointed to above, this matters for science too. If you force science into a false worldview, you end up with false science. For example, until the last year or so, Darwinists were headed in the wrong direction when considering DNA function with the now defunct concept of Junk-DNA. Their false worldview lead them to impose this idea on their science, and now they are back-peddling, or rather, trying to pretend the new functionality fits their model and get you to ignore what they previously said. And don’t forget, such an error has real-world implications, such as delayed medical advances.

It isn’t religion that impedes science, but the imposition of a faulty worldview on it.

Image credit: … science in blue! by James Vaughan

The post Is intelligent design science? appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

Even though most of us will be unable to fully appreciate the biology involved, the filming and production, the astounding beauty of the subject matter – right down to the soundtrack – is incredible. This is a film the whole family can enjoy. My first viewing was with our family and even our toddler enjoyed it. As for the educational content, initially one might falsely assume it is going to be a bit overblown and ‘cheesy’ given some of the opening statements made by the scientists being interviewed… but, they then backup those claims in a big way. This film should push anyone to respond similarly. Wow, just WOW!… might be a good reaction.

I will not attempt a point by point or theme by theme review of this material presented. Briefly, the film highlights the amazing capabilities of the butterfly and follows the metamorphosis process. Instead, I’ll give you a summary of a few of the points which struck me as most important and leave you with a strong recommendation to see the film.

Butterflies are amazingly equipped creatures. One of the first points the film makes is that each species of butterfly lays eggs on a particular species of plant. They can detect the host plant by scent from miles away. They then tell visually by leaf-shape to identify the plant among the other flora. Finally, they taste to be certain. This is important, for if the eggs end up on the wrong species of plant, the caterpillars will die. This is but one brief aspect of their vast ability. The most amazing aspect of butterflies, however, might be something over which they have no control; the metamorphosis transformation from caterpillar to butterfly.

On a first glance, the metamorphosis process might seem simple. The caterpillar builds the chrysalis and out pops a butterfly. However, what is actually taking place is incredibly complex and has implications for the heated debate between naturalistic evolution and intelligent design. For example, the chrysalis is more like a structural mold for the forming body parts than a shapeless mass coving the whole process. Many of the caterpillar cells are actually dissolved in the process, with the raw materials being reused. Larval cells are dissolved while imaginal cells are transformed. Some components and organs are completely reworked. For example, the eye in the caterpillar is a simple light sensor, while the eye of the butterfly is a highly complex compound eye which sees infrared through ultraviolet. Reproductive organs are built and the digestive tract is reworked for a different type of food source. Much of the film breaks out this brief description in detail, using electron microscope imagery, computer animation, and amazing cinematography to illustrate the points.

The big catch here, is that while the stages seem like completely different creatures, the caterpillar and butterfly are one organism. The caterpillar has no reproductive organs. The butterfly lays the eggs. When the caterpillar enters the chrysalis and ‘dissolves’ it is a suicidal move if the information isn’t there to properly complete the process. It’s the old chicken and egg problem to the Nth degree. Natural selection is not forward thinking. From a naturalistic viewpoint, there would need to be some other explanation for how we get butterflies and metamorphosis than small incremental evolutionary steps.

As an aside, this documentary does not cover objections to the intelligent design conclusion concerning metamorphosis. However the Discovery Institute offers a fairly in-depth analysis of such critiques, which appear to be few. As I always recommend to apologists, take a look at what the opposition is saying. I did this, albeit briefly in comparison to what a trained biologist might be able to, and found only one thorough treatment from an evolutionary vantage point. ⁽¹⁾Truman, J. W. and L. M. Riddiford, 1999. The origins of insect metamorphosis. Nature 401: 447-452. PDF here: http://129.123.92.202/biol5530/truman99.pdf Everything else I found referenced this work (often just footnoting it in a ‘case closed’ manner with little-to-no analysis). The Discovery Institute resource (which I actually discovered during this research) critiques this evolutionary paper, making some of the points that struck me as I tried to understand it with my lay-level knowledge of biology. (That makes one feel good!)

In brief, the evolutionary explanation is that the butterfly and caterpillar appeared in a much more basic form before the metamorphosis process entered the picture (many insects go through a larval to adult transformation). The specialization which this process might add to each stage (so the caterpillar would’t compete for food sources, for example, as the caterpillar and butterfly eat different things) drove the change. A number of molts which would normally take place in the transition to the adult are compressed (by a hormone) into one rapid chrysalis stage. This essentially gets rid of the forward-stepping problem, as the genetic information and body-plans already exist.

Lacking actual evidence, this strikes me as quite the “just so story” if there ever was one. Evolutionists seem to make this type of flimsy argument constantly. If B is better than A, A must have preceded B, and furthermore A transformed into B. Natural selection often seems to gain some kind of magical planning ability to produce the better. It also often seems to be able to produce myriad successful changes all in one go. But definitely investigate the Discovery Institute supplementary material I referred to above for the detailed problems with the Truman and Riddiford paper.

Showcasing more amazing abilities of this fascinating creature, the film shifts to the journey of the Monarch butterfly. This 2500 mile migration from the northern USA and Canada to a few small locations in central Mexico occurs because these tropical creatures cannot weather the winter. They return to the north because the milkweed is their host plant. (Note: The milkweed contains toxins which the caterpillar stores in its skin. These toxins make it taste really bad to predators in the butterfly stage, and is indicated by their color and markings.)

While it is amazing to me that such a tiny, seemingly fragile creature, can make such an incredible journey in the first place (they travel about 50 miles per day), some of the details are shocking. First is their level of navigation which gets them to a few small forested locations on a trans-volcanic mountain range. (The scenes of millions of butterflies in a small forest area alone make this film worth seeing!) What makes this really remarkable is that none of them have made the journey before; not even their parents. Most Monarch butterflies only live between 2 and 4 weeks. But, the August generation is genetically programmed to live up to 9 months, which allows them to make the journey, endure winter, and begin the return trip. Yet, each year, the Monarchs end up in the same forest range even though the last to be there were several generations back.

A final point which adds weight to the design argument, but which also touches on our intuitive and aesthetic side, is the beauty of butterflies. As noted in the film, we typically associate things like planning, foresight, artistry, and engineering as signs of intelligence. Butterfly artistry goes far beyond survival. Our universal, common experience would tell us this, yet we are told to ignore this because the naturalistic presupposition needs to rule this out. Note however: this is philosophy or religion, not science, being imposed to reach such a conclusion.

In conclusion, this is simply an awesome production in every aspect. If you couldn’t care less about the science or apologetic implications, you’ll still enjoy these beautiful creatures, scenery, and soundtrack. If you do care about the science involved or the apologetic implications, this is a must see addition to your library. It makes a very strong case for the intelligent design position without overly pushing this aspect throughout the film. Opening the details of metamorphosis to us (as well as the artistry) shouts this message loud and clear on its own.

Disclosure: I received a free review copy of this media from the publisher. I was under no obligation as to the nature or content of this review. The opinions expressed are my own. My thanks to the publisher for providing it.

The post Media Review: <em>Metamorphosis</em> appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job is a book written by scientist, pastor, and astronomer Hugh Ross. ⁽¹⁾see Reasons.org While it is, in some sense, a commentary on Job, it is also a considerably different treatment than I have run across before. Most people who analyze Job immediately jump into the suffering Job experienced, God’s sovereignty, or something along those lines. While these would certainly be primary themes of Job (Ross acknowledges this (22) ⁽²⁾parenthetical number references are book page numbers and spends some time on these topics), the point of this book is to ‘read between the lines’ a bit more to see what else we might discover; and discover, Ross does!

The book aims at a general audience, including Christian and non-Christian. It is written at a level which should be accessible to nearly anyone. As to what the book hopes to accomplish, Ross says, “My hope in writing is that readers will find this book’s focus on the science and creation content of Job a liberating experience in answering their questions and concerns about the Christian faith, in healing divisions within the church, and in challenging nonbelievers with evidence they’ve never yet considered.” (13) I believe Ross accomplishes this goal.

This is not going to be a typical book review, where an argument is followed through each chapter to the conclusion. I did not notice such a progression. This could be because a) there isn’t one, apart from the above overall goal, or b) that I missed it because I listened to it as an audio book ⁽³⁾I had the Kindle ‘read’ the book into a MP3 file on my computer, then I put this on my iPod. It seems to be a great way to get through a book, as I’m a slow reader, but I’m … Continue reading; a first for me. What I will do instead is talk about some of the themes into which Ross groups his discoveries and investigation, and then talk about some of the discoveries I found to be most profound.

The Prologue shares Hugh’s personal story of the ordeals and suffering he and his family underwent while he was writing the book. Aside from being a nice opportunity to get to know the author a bit better, it highlights the opportunity we sometimes have to learn and grow in the midst of suffering. Hugh notes that it impressed him greatly how, “Job did not waste his suffering.” (10)

The chapters of the book seem to be the points Ross is drawing from Job, organized into categories such as: today’s issues, timeless questions, new questions, creation-day controversies, other Genesis controversies, uniqueness of humanity, the ten nepesh animals, soulish animals and lessons we can learn from them, dinosaurs, the problem of suffering, and more.

One of the big points this book makes is that parts of Job can be seen as a backdrop to Genesis and other books of the Bible. (17, 19, 33) Job was likely earlier than Genesis (in a literary sense), even though Genesis begins at an earlier event (creation). If true, this would mean that the original reader of Genesis would have been familiar with Job. (32) If we insert some of the detail we find in Job into the Genesis account of creation, we begin to clear up some of the controversies between the Young Earth, Old Earth, and Theistic Evolution views. For example, Job can help us clear up what appears to be a problem with science and the sun not being created until day four. Speaking about Job 38:4, 9, Ross says, “Darkness initially pervades the surface of the deep (Gen. 1:2) not because the sun and stars hadn’t yet been created, but rather because Earth’s primordial atmosphere was like a thick blanket that prevented light from penetrating to the surface of Earth’s waters.” (82) This is just one of a number of issues, such as death before the fall, interaction with the Young Earth view of dinosaurs, when and what plants came on what days, or the special ways in which humans differ from the animals, that Job speaks to. It is also interesting that if Job is the earliest book of the Bible, it would be the earliest mention (and a clear one at that!) of our need for a Redeemer. (40)

Speaking of animals, their discussion makes up a large portion of this book. In one section, Hugh recounts interactions he had with animals while hiking in very remote parts of British Columbia, and how their behavior differs from animals who have had interaction with fallen humanity. (135-136) Part of the point of this is to illustrate that morality is something unique to humanity. Another fascinating section involves the ten nepesh animals found in Job 38 and 39. Ross considers why these ten animals are specifically mentioned and ponders what we might learn from their importance. For example, goats are very easy to tame, and the first animals to be domesticated. While some other animals beat goats in production of various resources, goats are the best in one animal. In more recent times, goats have been used to create fire-breaks or to stop the spread of invasive plant species, as they are so effective in their cleaning of the vegetation, even in places humans would have a hard time taking machinery. (154-155) Another example is the ostrich. (159-161) Among the many interesting facts about this animal, Ross indicates the importance it would have had to early humanity (the use of it’s eggs and egg-shells), but also the importance it could have for us in the future. Ostrich meat could be produced much more cheaply than beef (half the price of our least expensive meat, turkey), but is quite nutritious and less damaging to the environment to produce than beef. Ross notes that domesticated cows produce more greenhouse gasses than the combined vehicles of the world. (65)

There are many fascinating ties pointed out between Job (and the Bible) and science in this book. While they are intriguing to me, a bit of caution should be advised. Some of the ties seem a bit speculative. By this, I mean that Ross often draws some correlation between a passage and what we are discovering in science, where the two harmonize nicely. But it isn’t always the case that one would draw this out by exegeting the passage. I don’t see this as a problem, other than considering Ross’ enthusiasm, it can sometimes seem more like the latter. An example of this would be looking at Job 38:19-20 and the discussion on the discoveries concerning dark matter. (60-63) The passage certainly does seem to treat light and darkness as things (they reside in places), but I’m not sure how if it were poetic license it would contradict the centuries old idea of darkness as absence of light (as Ross notes). It, then, wouldn’t necessarily be making a claim about reality. Another such example, which is more persuasive to me, is in how often the Bible speaks of God ‘stretching out’ the heavens and what we now know about Big-Bang cosmology. (56) This is consistently illustrated throughout Scripture and could certainly have been stated differently. It is a bit too-conveniently compatible with the science. In general, though, what Ross does is show how science and Biblical revelation are compatible, especially at the points where skeptics often attack.

I appreciate Dr. Ross taking this type of look at Job as it grounds the book in history and reality. Too many tend to take away the big themes, but consider Job a story or fable (even in circles where this isn’t explicitly stated). Because of this, they overlook a lot of what is actually there. This also invites the question of why all this extra detail is given if it is a fable only meant to convey the primary point. It would be a bit like looking at a van Gogh, and saying, “Forget all that other stuff; it is just a painting; the important point is that there are stars in the sky.”

Ross presents a great deal of research on the background of Job and the figures (Job’s friends) involved in the debate. Even considering that I am seminary educated and wrote a paper on Job in one of my Old Testament classes, much of this was new to me (I’m not sure whether this says more about my rigor as a student or the research Ross conducted, but I’m confident nearly everyone will learn something new 🙂 ). Also, gaining an understanding of the magnitude of the debate and what was at stake, one begins to understand why God accepted Satan’s challenge (something troubling to most who seriously read Job). I also appreciated the level of respect Ross paid to Job’s friends and their counsel. The background Ross provides adds dimensions to them and the book of Job as a whole. It is too easy to write them off as bad friends, incorrect on the counsel they give, and to fail to pay attention to their part of the discussion.

One of the possible shortcomings of the book (aside from endnotes; I hate endnotes; footnotes please!), may be that the book often diverges from Job to make points of the broader Reasons to Believe (RtB) model. This may turn some off who want to stick entirely to Job, or those who don’t agree with the RtB position. For everyone else, I think it enriched the book making it more helpful to both Christians and unbelievers than the subject at hand indicated when they began reading. It helps to see how everything fits together.

Another potential problem is that the book includes so many points that some of them are handled too superficially. While nearly any subject can be expanded on, given enough space, such a brief handling can leave the reader (especially the skeptic) with the idea that the point wasn’t well established. They might think that what Ross presented is all that there is to say. An example of this was the handling of ANE (Ancient Near East) cosmology parallels with Genesis. (76-78) It is often asserted that Genesis was never intended to portray real history, but instead was only a literary device written as a polemic to concepts found within ANE cosmology. This cosmology, it is said, was shared by the Israelites, so they wrote about what they knew. Ross includes a diagram and brief explanation of ANE cosmology, but then spends only about a page dealing with the supposed mention of the brass dome of ANE cosmology in Job. While the explanation is good, it barely touches the major controversy. I was left wanting a brief explanation of how Job, Genesis, and other places in Scripture support non-ANE cosmology, while still interacting with it at points. Essentially, I found myself wanting more depth at some points (knowing there was more), lest the skeptics feel they have won. I recognize the size considerations book publishers impose, but would have chosen to trim some of the other longer areas down in order to expand these points.

Overall, Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job was a very enjoyable book. It was written at a level which nearly everyone can grasp. While it left me wanting more at points, it peaked my interest for further study. It also left me feeling like I couldn’t end this review, as I have barely touched on a few of the many-dozens of points this book makes. Agree or disagree with Ross, I would highly recommend giving this book a read. It is a delightful blend of personal experience, analysis of Job, possible ties to science, and explanation of aspects of the Christian narrative and worldview.

Note: A free copy of this book was provided for review by Reasons to Believe. ⁽⁴⁾That said, I ended up buying it on Kindle so I could listen to it, as I was finding it hard to get dedicated reading time. It is a book I want in my electronic collection anyway!

The post Book Review: Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job by Dr. Hugh Ross appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

Photo:fossil frog by kevinzim

While some apologetics issues remain the same through the ages, such as, ‘Did Christ rise on Easter morning?‘ or ‘Does God exist?‘ many depend on specific challenges Christianity is facing at a specific time. This article aims to equip you to answer one of the hottest apologetic topics Christians face today, creation vs evolution. And, this topic can often be as heated (or more so) between Christians than between the Christian and unbeliever.

Yet, it does not need to be this way. With a bit of education on the subject, everyone should be able to discuss it without all the heat, even if they ultimately disagree. Sadly, because of this heat, many have chosen to avoid the details, focusing only on what Genesis 1 is ultimately about. I think this is a crucial mistake for Christian apologetics.

By the time you finish this article, you should have a basic foundation on which to build, as well as have a bit respect for the positions others hold.

That said, a few points need to be made before digging in. First, this issue should NOT DIVIDE Christians. It simply is not a mark of whether someone is a Christian or not. The real debate here is between creation (or theism) and naturalism, not different possible methods of creation. Part of the reason this discussion does get so heated between Christians, is usually that they think the other group isn’t taking the Bible seriously enough. This could be the case, but should not be assumed. I have met people from each camp who take the Bible VERY seriously.

Much of the importance of understanding this debate is to be able to clarify it to people outside of Christianity. Most assume a Christian will be a ‘Creationist’, and by that, they mean Young Earth Creationist. Many believe these Christians are opposed to science, progress, technology, etc. They also often fear that Christians want to take over the science classroom to train students about Christianity. If these fears were true (and they sometimes are), these people have a legitimate concern. By properly understanding the positions, you can explain your position in an intelligent manner. Even if you end up being one of those ‘feared’ Young Earth Creationists, you can distance yourself from the main things these people are afraid of: you are fine with science, properly understood; you don’t want to force Christianity on anyone; and you can pull out your iPod to show them you indeed do embrace progress and technology. 😉

I won’t be going into great detail on any of the positions. There will be future articles with more details on each position. It is also important to note that TilledSoil.org does not have an official position, yet it will become obvious which position this particular author is most convinced of at this time.

Be sure you are familiar with the range of what people can mean by the term evolution before continuing on. Please see our previous article on this: https://www.tilledsoil.org/2010/08/12/evolution-understanding-the-term/

Four Basic Positions

There are actually a lot of different views on how life came about and has changed over time, however, they can be roughly summarized into four main categories. Below, I have listed each category, along with a brief characterization. Then I have listed some potential advantages and disadvantages of each view. Finally, I have listed a figure associated with that view.

Young earth creationism (YEC): 7, 24 hour days; ~6000 year old earth; literal, historical Genesis

+ thwarts naturalistic evolution – helps explain some possible science anomalies uncovered from time to time – seems to match a natural reading of Genesis – solves pre-fall problems with death and natural ‘evil’ (earthquakes, etc.)

– hard to square with mainstream science (or OEC people might say, the ‘book of creation’) – seems to call God’s nature into question (would God trick us?) – requires what might be a literalistic reading of Genesis – tends to create a major division between mainstream science and Christianity.

(ex: Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis ⁽¹⁾Note: AiG (especially Ken Ham), sometimes seems uncharitable towards other organizations & Christians who do not share his/their view – in a manner which TilledSoil.org does not condone. … Continue reading)

Old earth creationism (OEC; progressive creationism): day = period of time; earth billions of years old; literary, but historical, Genesis

+ allows for a historical reading of Genesis – squares Scripture with much of mainstream science – better covers the entire Biblical witness

– danger of tying scientific discovery too closely to a particular interpretation of Scripture – disagreement over where the historical / metaphorical division lies – requires what some see as interpretational gymnastics

(ex: Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe)

Theistic evolution (evolutionary creation): God is involved with the evolutionary process (how and to what extent varies greatly in this view) – a metaphorical understanding of the first chapters of Genesis

+ allows for complete (or at lest indisputable) agreement between mainstream science and Scripture

– requires some theological gymnastics – disagreement over where the historical / metaphorical divisions are.

(ex: Francis Collins, founder of BioLogos.org) ⁽²⁾Another source which does a better job of addressing the theological implications is “Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, & Evolution” by Deborah B. Haarsma & Loren D. … Continue reading

Naturalistic evolution: life came about by chance (they would dispute this term), then was driven forward through natural selection – God is irrelevant to the conversation (though many in this camp would be atheists, or at least agnostic)

+ for the naturalist… no need for god / super-natural – is thought to allow pure ‘science’ with no dependencies on other disciplines such as philosophy, theology, etc.

– opens a can of worms in many areas if the conclusion is that there is no God – contradicts Christian belief – explaining evolutionary ‘convergence’ is a problem – natural selection needs life to begin with.

(ex: Richard Dawkins, biologist, atheist, author of “God Delusion“)

This ‘chart’ should be pretty easy to digest and contains the basics. I am now going to comment a bit on each. Again, it will probably be obvious which viewpoint I prefer. However, you should examine the evidence for each and draw your own conclusion. Also, don’t worry if you do not understand some of the +/- points. They are mainly to give you a starting point for conversation.

Young earth creationism is a view pretty familiar to most of us. They generally believe that roughly 6,000 years ago, God spoke creation into existence. Each day of God’s work in the Biblical text of Genesis 1 was what we know as a 24-hour solar day on earth. Often this view is labeled as ‘Creationism’. It is one form of creationism, but we need to remind both outsiders and young earth creationists that ALL Christians believe in creation, even the theistic evolutionists (whether they realize/admit it or not!). Their primary concern seems to be that other views do not take Scripture seriously or trust the miraculous capacity of God. They rightly recognize the danger of naturalistic evolution, but sometimes pick their battles against it out of (in my opinion) misunderstanding.

Young earth creationism is often seen as a ‘literal’ reading of the first chapters of Genesis. However, I think that might not be entirely accurate. There is the fact that Genesis is a different genre than a ‘science text’ or a ‘writing of history’ (as the evolutionary creationist would argue), but I mean something a bit different. I am talking more about a careful reading of clues which are right before us in the Bible. Some of these include: that Genesis isn’t the only description of creation in the Bible (cf: Job, Psalms, etc.); there is no day and night on the 7th day; Adam must have worked extremely quickly and been incredibly impatient (cf. Genesis 2:23). There is also an issue with the interpretation of Hebrew ‘yom’ or day in English. We will address this later, but these points should clue us into the fact that the debate is a bit deeper than ‘literal’ vs ‘non-literal.’ (note: regarding science, some in this camp seem to be quite hostile towards it, almost taking an anti-intellectual stance, while others take it quite seriously and insist that mainstream science is in error… once these errors are corrected, the Bible and science square quite well.)

Old earth creationism (or better Progressive creationism to differentiate them from theistic evolution, as they also believe in an old earth) is a view that is kind of mid-way between young earth and theistic evolution. They try to take both the Bible and science seriously. They do not see a problem between Genesis 1 and what mainstream science has discovered (for the most part), other than some of the conclusions which science has imposed on the data out of a naturalistic worldview (i.e.: macro evolution, etc.). They believe the earth is billions of years old, and that the ‘days’ in genesis can be explained as periods of time in God’s creative work, centered around major events. They do believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, but that it must be understood within its genre and in context to the entire Biblical record (which they see to actually be reading it even MORE literally than the young earth creationists). In other words, a young earth reading is seen to be more ‘literalistic’ than literal, missing things like context, a proper understanding of the range of Hebrew words, genre of the text, and many details of the text itself. For example, expanding on an above point, how is it that in one 24-hour day, Adam worked the garden, examined all the animals to see if any would make a suitable helper, named them all, underwent an operation, and then said (in the Hebrew), “at long last” upon seeing Eve. I suppose the awe and love he must have felt gives him some poetic license there, but that seems to be stretching things a bit!

One of the primary problems with a progressive creation view is the idea of concordism. This is something both young earth and progressive creationists utilize, to the dismay of the theistic evolutionists. It is the idea that you could actually match up Scripture and science (or that they ‘concord’… exist in harmony). Theistic evolutionists do not generally see Genesis as historical or scientific in nature, so there would be no reason to try and ‘read into them’ these kind of ideas. They would say that Genesis is only meant to teach theological concepts, and the other groups are imposing this concordism onto the text. The reason this becomes a problem for progressive creationists, is: where does one stop? How much of what Scripture says is trying to be scientifically descriptive, and when is it, in fact, only making a theological point or simply anthropocentric language (from our human point of view, like sun-rise, sun-set). Another problem is that if progressive creationists tie too much of what is said by the Bible to science, then a discovery in science might cause major problems and embarrassment to the view (ex: the Galileo incident around heliocentricity… though this story is often gravely misrepresented). In my opinion, it isn’t a black and white divide. Most of the time, when we recount a story, we’re going to be including some science in our historical account. It won’t be text-book science, but it will reveal scientific details if considered carefully. This would be closer to what I see as going on in Genesis.

Theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism as some prefer) is a view that Genesis 1 teaches us nothing of scientific importance. The point is that God did it, not how. They will agree with the naturalistic evolutionist at many or all points, right up to the unknown cause behind everything; God. Essentially, evolution, even in the broadest sense of common descent and origin of life is good science; but God is somehow driving it (either directly, maybe through quantum mechanics, or though how it was ordered at the start; the design for it all to unfold was ‘baked in.’ In their view, this may be seen as a greater display of God’s power than the other views.). This view seems quite safe and is held by major popular scientists, such as Francis Collins. It allows concordism with just about everyone in the scientific world. At the point where they (science and faith) might disagree, science supposedly can’t reach anyway. The problems with this view are not so much that they miss something important the Bible has to say in Genesis; I agree with them that the main point of Genesis is theological, not scientific. However, by accepting much of what naturalistic science is saying about humanity, they might be missing something important Genesis has to tell us theologically (which might also inform our science). If you ask some theistic evolutionists about ‘the Fall’ and sin, and have theological training, you might be shocked at what you hear.

The theistic evolution view is easily the most commonly accepted view in scholarly and scientific circles today. I think it is so for a few reasons. 1) Many aren’t familiar with the detailed views of progressive creationism, so they don’t even consider it as an option. 2) Modern Biblical criticism has greatly undermined the idea of the historicity of Genesis 1-11. 3) It seems on the surface to be a very safe stance. ⁽³⁾I don’t make these points lightly or to simply pick at theistic evolutionists. In talking to a good number of them (even experts who have written books on the subject), I find they do not know much … Continue reading

One crucial point in the debate is the use of the Hebrew word ‘yom’, or day. Just like the English word, it has a broader range of meaning than 24-hour solar day. It can mean sunrise to sunset; a 24-hour day; the afternoon; an indefinite (but not infinite) period of time; reference to a range of time (the days of Noah); proper noun with an event (Yom Kippur – Day of Atonement), etc. This is further complicated by the fact that Hebrew has no other words to differentiate as we would in English (ie: day vs epoch). Hebrew vocabulary is quite limited, so you have to figure out meaning by context. Certainly that there was ‘evening and morning’ could push us towards the 24-hour view, if it were not for the literary, poetic nature, as well as the other problems with this view mentioned above. The point is, concerning day, a 24-hour day or a period-of-time day are both literal readings of the text.

There are a lot of difference between views on this topic and a great amount of complexity involved. However, it can all be boiled down to four basic categories which are not too hard to summarize. If you can do this, you can defuse a lot of the tension within the church. You might also be able to gain the ear of someone who has written off Christianity based on a false assumption. It is important to get some of the terminology down here, such as ‘evolution’ or ‘transitional form’. Hopefully, if you are interested in this topic, this article will be only the beginning for you. However, if not, at least by understanding the above, you will have many great opportunities to be a peacemaker.

The post Creation vs Evolution – 4 views appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

Photo:Love the Bug by jurvetson

Michael Behe has been a controversial figure, both within biological sciences, as well as within Christian apologetic circles. He is probably best known for his views on Irreducible Complexity in the area of intelligent design.

If you have heard about him, positively or negatively, you might do well to hear some of his positions right from the man himself. This interview on Apologetics.com does a great job of getting to know a bit more about Michael as a person, his background, and his positions on many talked-about issues with which he has been associated.

Apologetics.com – Interview with Dr. Michael Behe

The post Interview with Michael Behe appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

Photo:The evolution of Can by coda

In the coming weeks, I will be posting a blog which should be very helpful to people struggling with the issue of creation vs evolution. However, as a background to that article, we first need to take a look at some of the terms used in the discussion. We will begin with the word evolution itself.

Definition of Evolution

It is important to realize that people can mean different things by the term ‘evolution’. I find that people are often talking past each other in discussions when using this term. It is important, then, to get everyone on the same page so they can truly get to the core of agreement or disagreement.

evolution (#1) – change over time – We use this inside and outside of science. For example, the way school is taught has evolved over the years. In science, this can be applied to biology. We certainly know biological organisms change over time as well as through generations. Think of basic biology experiments with fruit flies, bacteria, etc. I think everyone accepts this definition and understanding of evolution (or at least should).

evolution (#2) – micro or special – Small changes between generations of living things, where some changes will likely be advantageous to an organism and be passed on through generations. In other words, natural selection or some derivative of the concept. Some might dispute whether a species ⁽¹⁾another ambiguous term jump can happen here, but I think micro evolution is (and should be) generally accepted. Most of us have heard about the finch beaks Darwin observed, or we might think of something like dog breeding. Though forced by humans, there is a similar effect. In the end, it is still a dog, but the changes can be quite remarkable.

evolution (#3) – macro or general – That micro or special evolution, over long time periods, can account for the diversity of life we see. ⁽²⁾Origin of life is really a separate issue, though sometimes called chemical evolution. Common descent or Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) language is often used. This is where the most of the disagreement comes in (or, where it should come in).

When scientists chide people for not accepting evolution as a fact, they are talking about evolution #1 and probably #2. However, they are also often brining an assumption of #3 along with that. When Christians reject evolution, they should probably be rejecting only #3, if any at all. There are some Christians who would accept #3.

If we simply lump all three definitions together and accept or reject them in whole, the scientist is going to think the Christian who rejects evolution to be simple-minded or worse. On the other hand, the Christian who  is wary of #3 is going to see the scientist who accepts evolution as up to no good; trying to smuggle their worldview in with their science. And, unfortunately, both are often the case.

If we understand these definitions, we can ask the right questions when we are in conversation to be certain we know what the other person means by ‘evolution’. We can then decide on how many things we agree, and talk about the areas where we disagree. Doing so might not bring agreement and resolution, but should bring understanding and generate mutual respect. This is something desperately needed from both sides in this debate!

The post Evolution: understanding the term appeared first on TilledSoil.org.